You are viewing a read-only archive of the Blogs.Harvard network. Learn more.

f/k/a archives . . . real opinions & real haiku

June 5, 2005

pausing mid-argument

Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 2:56 pm

a bumblebee
stumbles in clover



dusk on the estuary–
a school of bass break
the shallow tide



January sales
a clown’s car steals
my parking space


Matt Morden from The Heron’s Nest

dusk on the estuary (Nov. 2001)

January sales” (June 2005)

mid-argument” (Oct. 2001)


by dagosan:

my eyes blur —

dandelion clocks

become sidewalk clouds

[June 5, 2005]

dandelionClock potluck

tiny check On June 1st, the Ethics Board of the Town of Rotterdam, NY, declared

the Town Council violated state ethics laws, when it passed a resolution

exempting the Town Attorney, the Law Firm of Parisi & Saccocio, PLLC,

from compliance with the ethics code with regard to one matter.


The Situation: The Council wants P&S to work on an application pending

before the town’s planning board, submitted by Golub Corp., which owns

Price Chopper, our region’s largest food market chain. Golub wants to build

a frozen-food distribution center. The application was submitted and reviewed

initially by the prior Town Attorney, so the Council believes there’s not much for

P&S to do as the application continues.


The problem: Golub has been and continues to be a client of P&S. As

an editorial in today’s Sunday Gazette (“Ethical Void in Rotterdam, C2,

June 5, 2005, $$ubscr., but copied at states:

“[T]he fact that Parisi & Saccocio’s firm is engaged by Golub
means their impartiality is compromised. Amending the town
law to make an exception in this case was absurd.”

It’s hard to disagree. What I’m wondering is why P&S would even let

the Town Council pass the exemption. Doesn’t it have an obligation to

recuse itself?


from the weeds
that little butterfly
is born!

ISSA, translated by David G. Lanoue

tiny check About Enough: I usually agree with Denise Howell (well, except for

her podcast fixation), but I do not share Denise’s desire that law firms use

technology that “lets lawyers (all and sundry, of course) readily customize

their bios at will, on the fly, with information that really tells people something

about the bio-ee. As Marc Canter might call it, “The ultimate ‘About Me’ page.”

(See Monica Bay’s grades for top law firm decloaking policies.) I agree that

associates should have brief bios on firm websites, but I have no interest seeing

weblog-like revelations of the cultural interests and hobbies of young lawyers

(boring!). Moreover, a firm has every right to see the content of pages before

they are posted. Perhaps Associate Bios could contain a link to their personal

weblogs, with a disclaimer that the content is not necessarily approved by the



prayingHandsS Mike Cernovich passes judgment on “Legislative Invocations,” coming to

the same conclusion as Your Editor, providing a wonderful Scripture quote

[Matt. 6:5-6 (KJV), and opining:

“I am opposed to public prayers. Generally, the quickest way to
spot a phony baloney is to look for the guy or gal leading the prayer.”

  • Speaking of Mike “Fed84” Cernovich: I’m sure he’ll be thrilled to know

    that I finally got myself a copy of The Federalist Papers, while at my

    favorite used book store this week. I wasn’t looking for it, but felt a

    certain fatalism when I discovered Mike’s holy book, incorrectly

    shelved under “fiction.” Now, I’ll be able to ascertain when Fedster is

    develishly quoting scripture at his weblog.


“tinyredcheck” FLASH! Tenured Professor Admits Ignorance, Earth Moves: I am not making

this up. No mud-slinging, either.



tiny check Meanwhile, Cernovich’s weblogmate, Norm Pattis is rightly scandalized by NYSBA’s

opposition (along with all the other bar groups in the state, and law school deans) to the

Board of Law Examiners decision to increase the passing standard by 15 points out of

1000 (in 5-point increments over three years). [See NLJ article, June 3, 2005] Click here

for links to BOLE’s Final Report (December 2004), and all written comments. Here’s a

link for the NYSBA’s Statement to BOLE. Norm’s remarks are worth reading in full.


In a Sept. 2004 press release, BOLE explained:

“The Board first proposed this increase in 2002, following a study of the current
passing score that involved the graders of the bar examination and panels of
practicing attorneys, judges and law professors. The study commissioned by the
Board concluded that the current passing score, which was set in 1979, is not
an accurate reflection of present day norms of minimum competence to practice

. . . the Board concluded that the increase was appropriate to maintain the
standards of competence of New York lawyers and to fulfill the public protection
function of the bar examination.”

I have no patience for the public whining over a phased-in 1.5% increase in the grade

necessary to pass (from 660 to 675 out of 1000). And, I am far from sure that the

much-noted impact on diversity in the profession is a valid reason to oppose an other-

wise proper increase. Those who want no bar exams at all would do a lot of damage

to consumers — who have no way to judge the quality of a lawyer before, and often

not even after, they provide legal services.

growing to the beat
of the cloudburst…

ISSA, translated by David G. Lanoue


We should always be trying to make bar exams better tools to assess and predictor

lawyer competence. If NYSBA’s study commission helps achieve that goal, they will

provide an important service. But, second-guessing BOLE on the passing grade is



dandelion Grasshopper, Don’t Let Your Brain Get Old: Much like the character on

the first page of One Hundred Years of Solitude (but about a half century too soon),

I’ve been having trouble lately recalling the names of rather common objects. (Yes,

it’s from too much weblog activity.) Yesterday, wind and lawn mowers took

the fluffy heads off of a weed that is omnipresent in our neighborhood. The result

was amazing pollen-puff clouds, which accumulated on sidewalks, driveways, and

patios on our block. I spent 24 hours trying to remember the name of the weed —

and what we used to call the puffy heads as kids. I even did lots of Googling.

This morning, it struck me that those are just dandelions, and Wikipedia quickly

gave me the scoop, which I now share with you (and, more importantly, put into

my weblog’s memory bank):

“The flower head consists entirely of ray florets and matures into a
globe of fine filaments that are usually distributed by wind, carrying
away the seed-containing achenes. This globe (receptacle) is called
the ‘dandelion clock’, and blowing it apart is a popular pastime for

old weeds–
the festival’s breeze
reaches them

translated by David G. Lanoue  orig. dandelionClock

Powered by WordPress